Washington Terminal Co. v. Callahan
| Decision Date | 07 November 1921 |
| Docket Number | 3481. |
| Citation | 276 F. 334 |
| Parties | WASHINGTON TERMINAL CO. v. CALLAHAN. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Submitted October 12, 1921.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
George E. Hamilton and John J. Hamilton, both of Washington, D.C for appellant.
R. B Dickey and Dan Thew Wright, both of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Plaintiff's decedent, Hugh R. Callahan, a foreman of signal helpers and maintainers, was killed while repairing a switch in the yards of defendant terminal company. From a judgment for damages defendant appeals.
It appears that, while Callahan with his helper was working on what is known as switch No. 137, they were run over and killed by engine No. 23, which was moving a train of empty cars from the union depot to the yards. There was testimony that the train was moving at from six to eight miles per hour, and that the bell was ringing. A train passing on a parallel track, the testimony showed, was making sufficient noise to confuse the workmen and to detract attention from the approaching train. Callahan, however, was there under rules established by the company for the operation of its tracks and switches within the yard limits. One rule required the signal foreman's helper to keep a lookout while the foreman was at work on the switch and to warn him of approaching trains. Another rule required both the engineer and fireman to keep a lookout ahead for men working on the tracks and switches and to stop the train if they failed to get out of the way. These rules were in the interest of the company. Trains were constantly moving backward and forward on these tracks and switches, and if a workman was compelled to keep a lookout for his own safety, he would get little accomplished.
From the facts disclosed, the helper was undoubtedly confused by the noise of the passing train on the parallel track; but it appears that the engineer and fireman had a clear view of the track for a distance of 240 feet before reaching the switch where Callahan and his helper were killed. Callahan was relieved from keeping a lookout for approaching trains since, under the rules, he could rely upon his helper and the trainmen to protect him. We deem it unnecessary, therefore to analyze the testimony, since the accident could only have occurred through the negligence of the helper or the trainmen, or all. Their negligence is the negligence of defendant, for which it is liable. Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stats.L. 65, Sec. 1 (Comp. St. Sec. 8657).
In the light of the rules under which Callahan was working, the jury was justified in finding that his death was occasioned by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
... ... Koennecke v. Seaboard A. L. Railroad Co., 85 S.E ... 374, 239 U.S. 352; Washington T. Co. v. Callahan, ... 276 F. 334, 260 U.S. 760. "Thus it is held that it is ... the duty of the ... ...
-
Gulf, M. & N.R. Co. v. Walters
... ... the employer to the dangerous condition ... Washington ... Terminal Co. v. Callihan, 276 F. 334; Wright v ... Yazoo & M. V. R. R. Co., 197 F. 94; ... ...
-
Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of District of Columbia
... ... John S ... Barbour, of Washington, D.C., Osborne I. Yellott, of ... Baltimore, Md., and S. Russell Bowen, of Washington, D.C., ... ...
-
Greene v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 15533
...defendant was guilty of negligence or that the party was injured.' 132 Cal. at pages 364-365, 64 P. at page 480. Washington Terminal Co. v. Callahan, 51 App.D.C. 84, 276 F. 334, relied upon by plaintiffs, is not in point. There the decedent and his helper were working on a switch and were r......